Like this:

Mark Morford has a few simple questions he’d like George W to answer. Should only take a few minutes.

3) You are called by God. You believe you are the chosen one. The Lord Himself has happily green-lighted your decisions to bomb the living crap out of pip-squeak and nearly defenseless nations for decreasingly justifiable reasons. You are born-again, re-sobered, a former hardcore binge drinker and rumored huge fan of various illegal substances back in college, and you had at least one DUI arrest and went AWOL from the National Guard, and you’ve stashed away from public view all records of both your tenure as Texas governor, and those SEC investigations into your alleged insider trading. You are a failed oilman and a failed businessman and have been spoon-fed your entire career.So then: Do you sleep peacefully at night, or do your dreams involve small armies of angry sharp-toothed fairies, tearing you limb from limb and sucking the pith from your withered soul while they casually erase your entire portfolio as you scream, silently, unable to move due to all the leeches? Don’t bother answering. Your expression says it all.

Like this:

The headline on this NYT article should have read, “Nation’s President Manages to Walk Without Falling Down”, sub-head, “America Proud of President Who Gets 100 On Pop-Quiz, Speaks For Self Without Usual Rambling, Mumbling, and Incoherence.” You think I’m kidding?

After a meeting that both the White House and the commission had billed as historic, Mr. Bush appeared before reporters in the Rose Garden and described the question-and-answer session with the 10 members of the bipartisan commission as “very cordial.” He said he “answered every question that they asked.”

“Look, Mommy, I answered evewy kestion aw by myse’f.”

“That’s Mommy’s big, grown-up boy. Tell Mommy-Barb all about it.”

The setting for the panel’s long-awaited interview of Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney, who insisted on talking with the commission together, was orchestrated to take advantage of all of the symbolic power of the Oval Office while making clear that the White House did not consider the meeting to be adversarial. [Yeah, right.–M]Administration officials said the president and vice president were seated in wing-back chairs in front of the Oval Office fireplace, with the commission members seated on a pair of couches and several wooden chairs in an informal semicircle around them, the day’s strong sunlight streaming in from the windows behind them.

“We bwot all the teachers into my Big Woom and made ’em all sit wight in fwont of the window so the sun was in their eyes, and then me ‘n Dick sat down in the BIGGEST chairs so we was lookin’ down at ’em–”

“Very good, dear. What a good trick! And who taught you that?”

“My fwiend Karl, Mommy. He knows a lot of good stuff like that.”

“And then what happened, precious?”

“We just tol’ ’em evewything we tol’ ’em before, thass all.”

… they were aware of intelligence warnings but believed them to refer to threats overseas…the now-famous Aug. 6, 2001, intelligence briefing about domestic terrorist threats was mostly historical…[that it] did not recommend that the White House step up security…”There were no surprises,” said the panel’s chairman, Thomas H. Kean.

Really? I’m shocked. In these uncomfortable circumstances, faced with tough questioning, I’m sure (of course there’s no way to know since THEY DIDN’T ALLOW IT TO BE RECORDED), The Prez didn’t crack like a blanched walnut, huh? (Clinton reference–see Guidebook) Sorry for the interruption, now back to our regularly scheduled program, Dick & Georgie’s Excellent Adventure.

He said in an interview that the questioning was “very sharp but very fair — by sharp, I mean in the sense of intellectually sharp.”

“Uh-oh.”

“It’s OK, Mommy.”

“You mean Dickie answered all the questions?”

“Naw. I did.”

“Oh dear, dear.”

…the president had handled nearly three-quarters of the questions raised by the commissioners. If the public had been allowed to witness the meeting, he said, “I think they would have had a lot more confidence in our government.”

Because he may have shown he can answer a few friendly questions by giving answers he’s rehearsed without tripping over his own tongue? Oh, yes, that would have made me feel a LOT better.

Another of the panel’s Republicans, John F. Lehman, Navy secretary in the Reagan administration, said Mr. Bush had answered the panel’s questions with little hesitation or need for assistance from Mr. Cheney or Alberto R. Gonzales, the White House counsel.

“They said they wewe vewy pwoud of me.”

“They did, dear? Really?”

“Uh-huh.”

[Note the absence–and we are 2/3 of the way through the story–of any quote from Democratic panel members. Oh, look, here comes one now:]

“He answered directly and completely and in a very cordial and respectful way,” Mr. Kerrey said.

“I was a perfeck gen’leman.”

“I’m proud of you, dear. You didn’t spit at them?”

“Nope.”

“You didn’t squirm in your chair and burp like you usually do?”

“Nuh-uh.”

“And you called them all ‘Sir’?”

“Yup. Even that Jamie guy, excep’ I think he’s a girl.”

Despite what both sides agreed was the polite, even friendly tone of the meeting, the commissioners were treated as outsiders by the White House. They were seen being searched by hand for weapons before they stepped into the Oval Office….

“Well, you had to do that, dear. Some of them were..Democrats!” *shudders, gasps, gives her boy a hug* “I’m so glad you’re alright. That must have been a terrible ordeal.”

“Naw. I din’t like the test questions so I just took ’em and tossed ’em.”

In an appearance before reporters after the session, the president offered his first public explanation for why the White House had wanted him and Mr. Cheney to be interviewed together. Mr. Bush said he had wanted the commission to understand how he and Mr. Cheney operated as a team — both on Sept. 11 and in its aftermath.”I wanted them to know how I set strategy, how we run the White House, how we deal with threats,” Mr. Bush said. “The vice president answered a lot of their questions — answered all their questions. And I think it was important for them to see our body language as well, how we work together.”

Body language? Body language? He wanted them to see his body language? He wasn’t wearing his flight-suit again, was he? So he went hand-in-hand with Cheney so they could see his *gagging sound* “body…language…” Give the guy credit–it’s original. Stupid, but original. [“Body language”! Sheesh….]

Asked if the commission had questioned Mr. Bush about the possibility that Qaeda terrorists were still in the United States, Mr. Bush said, “No, they didn’t.”

Why would they? As their investigation showed conclusively, he’d be the last to know.

“The president was very forthcoming and answered all of our questions”…there was frequent laughter during the questioning…the former Republican governor of Illinois…praised Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney for “five-star performances.”…Mr. Bush would sometimes get a “twinkle in his eye” [You know, he could have that surgically removed, now–M]…”The president got off a couple of good shots.”

Of bourbon, or so I hear. They might as well have pinned a medal for bravery on him just for showing up, planted a gold star on his forehead for having his answers ready, given him the lead in the school play for being so convincing in his “performance”, and handed him the award as “Most Popular Kid in Class” because he was just so dang charming.

I fink I gonna fwow up.

Am I wrong or is everybody just relieved he didn’t self-destruct right in front of them?

Like this:

Paul D Clement, Deputy Solicitor-General, is arguing the Administration’s case against applying standard judicial procedures to the Gitmo prisoners. In the process, he is proving beyond the shadow of a doubt that the BA is distinctly undemocratic in outlook and instinctively authoritarian in nature.

This conclusion doesn’t arise just because they’re defending a basically indefensible concept; what is far more damning are the arguments they’re using to do it. In a court of law–the highest court in the land, no less, Clement began by saying that it was “remarkable that we have to confront this question when our troops are still on the ground in Afghanistan,” an argument that pre-supposes the SCOTUS has no role during a war. But that was only the beginning.

A majority of the justices expressed some degree of concern over the breadth of the administration’s position. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor asked Mr. Clement why “a neutral decision maker of some kind” could not be provided to determine whether a detainee is being properly held. “Is that so extreme that it should not be required?” she asked.Mr. Clement said the potential detainees’ initial screening, sorting those to be held from those who need not be, met that requirement. “For all intents and purposes, that is a neutral decision maker,” he said.

Um, what initial screening would that be? Is Mr Clement talking about the confab on the battlefield where the detainees were picked up? Or the kangaroo court in Gitmo run by the military–oh, darn. THERE WASN’T ONE.

Wait, it gets better. When Justice Ginsberg didn’t see why the detainees shouldn’t have “a forum” during which they could “explain themselves”, Clement answered that they already had one: their interrogation. “The interrogation process itself provides an opportunity for an individual to explain that this has all been a mistake.”

Is that right? Doggone, we done been wastin’ a awful lot o’ money on lawyers an’ judges and courts iffen that’s true. Hell, why, we could just say a police interrogation gives a suspect every chance to state his case to the cops an’ iffen they don’t buy it, then he’s guilty, pure an’ simple. Wham! Off he goes to jail for the rest o’ his life, and we’re done. No damn dumb “appeals” or even a tee-rial to appeal about. We could save $Billions$. We don’t need all that junk. Screw it. We got our justice system–the police.

This argument has been the justification and rationalization of every dictator of the past 100 years; the Soviets even enshrined it in law. Pinochet, accused of executing prisoners without a trial, pointed to the secret police interrogation as the only “trial” that was needed. He even used the same excuse–that these people were dangerous “anti-social terrorists” (he was talking about journalists, students, labor leaders, playwrights, teachers, and priests, by the way) and that the State was in a war for its survival and couldn’t afford little luxuries, like, say, a judicial system that might decide that some of his political the State’s enemies were innocent. In the Soviet Union, Stalin argued that his pogroms were necessary for “the security of the people and the people’s state”, and used the fear of the late 30’s when Hitler and Europe were readying for war to dismantle what was left of the old Czarist legal system (not much) and embark on the greatest murder spree in history in 1938.

What’s going on here? The virulently anti-Communist Republican right takes control and turns out to be exactly like the Soviets they hated? Aping their policies, mimicking their rationalizations, copying their techniques? But Mr Clement doesn’t have any problem with that.

“Doesn’t the court have some business intervening at some point if it’s the Hundred Years’ War or something?” Justice Stephen G. Breyer asked.Mr. Clement replied, “I’m not quite sure what you have in mind that they would intervene on.”

Golly, Paul, I dunno. Maybe BEING RAILROADED BY AN ADMINISTRATION THAT WANTS TO MAINTAIN AN UNPOPULAR WAR BY SHOWING US HOW ENDANGERED WE ARE? How about the possibility that the Administration’s designation was just WRONG? How about that? Over 100 of the Gitmo prisoners were released after almost two years of confinement because of lack of evidence. The Gitmo authorities arrested Capt Jimmy Yee for sedition and espionage and then had to drop the charges when his lawyers proved there was NO evidence to back them up. How about that? I mean, a trial is asking too much?

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, whose position appeared most in doubt, pressed Mr. Clement at one point for some sign of a concession. “I’m taking away from the argument the impression, and please correct me if I’m wrong, that you think there is a continuing role for the courts to examine the reasonableness of the period of detention,” he said in a hopeful tone.Mr. Clement was quick to correct him. “Well, I wouldn’t take that away, Justice Kennedy,” he said.

Translation: The Bush Admin does think that there is NO “continuing role for the courts”. As fas as they’re concerned, the Commissar-in-Chief is the one and only authority and everybody else ought to just shut up and go home like good little comrades.

Put this insane argument against the re-writing of history Seattle called our attention to, and this Admin isn’t just Orwell-like, it is Orwell brought to life. 1984 has Officially Arrived in the US, courtesy of George W Bush, First Emperor of America. Rove admires Imperial Rome? Well, Karl, your dreams have just come true. Enjoy it while you can because in November–pffffft!

Like this:

A while ago, I promised a series on intelligence agencies and how they work. This isn’t it. I’m still wading through a ton of material, finding whatever I can of it that’s online (I’m trying to emulate Seattle, which is bloody hard, and source as much as I can), and organizing my notes. But after reading a piece in today’s NYT on Doug Feith and his Counter-Terrorism Evaluation Group (C-TEG), there are a few comments I wanted to make that you can consider a lead-up to the Intelligence series. Call it a “Preface”. Or “An Extended Preliminary Note”. Or a “Watermelon.” Whatever floats your boat.

Most of this material was originally unearthed by Sy Hersh and published in The New Yorker (I’ll be quoting a LOT of it in the series) over several issues of the mag some months ago, so the NYT is, as usual, a little late getting on the bus. Nevertheless, reporter James Risen’s portrait of C-TEG and the controversy that swirled around it inside the IC is reasonably accurate. You should go read it. However, I’m not going to deconstruct this article now. What I want to do is call your attention to a few fundamental facts of intelligence-gathering before you read it so you have a context in which to put it.

C-TEG consisted of only two men–Michael Maloof and David Wurmser–and they were charged by Feith, Def-Undersec for Policy, with “re-evaluating” raw intelligence data. Feith, one of Newt Gingrich’s cadre of neocon altar boys, was convinced that the standard intelligence services were hiding or downgrading important information about Saddam’s links with Mid-East terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda, and the strength and sophistication of his WMD program either because they were filled with Democratic holdovers or because they were, as Gingrich said in a speech to the American Enterprise Institute in the fall of 2002, simply and irretrievably incompetent.

Gingrich has no experience in intelligence; neither has Feith; neither have Maloof and Wurmser, two more Gingrich accolytes. So how did they know all this “vital information” was being withheld by the IC? They “knew it” because they were all devotees of and True Believers in Laurie Mylroie’s conspiracy theory that Hussein was the Professor Moriarty of terrorism–that he was the planner, motivator, and funder of every Islamic terrorist group in the Middle East, including Hezbollah, Hamas, and AQ, and that he was even behind the bombing of the Murra Federal Building in Oklahoma City. Here’s Maloof showcasing a classic example of neocon naivete in action:

“We discovered tons of raw intelligence,” said Michael Maloof, one of the pair. “We were stunned that we couldn’t find any mention of it in the C.I.A.’s finished reports.”

Stunned. “Raw intelligence” consists of unconfirmed reports, unsubstatiated rumors, gossip, and outright lies told by informers to gain some desired advantage. It isn’t included in finished reports because most of it–as much as 95%–is plain, unadulterated garbage, inaccurate and meaningless. But Mr Malloof clearly didn’t know that. What’s worse, he didn’t care.

“I don’t have any problem with them bringing in a couple of people to take another look at the intelligence and challenge the assessments,” said Patrick Lang, a former Middle East analyst for the D.I.A. “But the problem is that they brought in people who were not intelligence professionals, people brought in because they thought like them. They knew what answers they were going to get.”

Feith responds to the charges with a challenge:

“I would be happy to have anybody come in and examine the quality of the work, whether it is supported by the data, whether it is logical, whether it is well-reasoned,” he said.

Here’s the problem: that “anybody” needs to be qualified and Feith doesn’t know that. “Anybody with intellegence experience” who looks at that data is going to be searching for confirmation and corroboration; when they don’t find it, they’re going to do what the IC has already done: label the C-TEG analysis worthless and throw it in the circular file. But if “anybody without intelligence experience” looks at that data, it might on the surface seem to be relevant, even significant, and they’ll wonder why it wasn’t in the reports.

What we have here is the worst possible combination of weaknesses for intelligence analysts: a pre-ordained agenda, a startling degree of naivete, a total lack of experience or training in the field, zero knowledge of how intelligence-gathering works–they didn’t even know as much as you would know if you read a couple of books–and a level of gullibility that strains belief. These guys were prepared to believe virtually anything that seemed to fit or confirm Mylroie’s wacked-out fantasies and to pass it on as if it were the Gospel. Which is, in fact, exactly what they did.

Mr. Feith said his group was not set up as a rival to the C.I.A. “This is what policy people do all the time, they read the existing intelligence,” he said. “We were not bypassing, we were not being secretive, we were not cutting the intel community out of this.” (emphasis added)

But you weren’t reading “the existing intelligence”, Mr Feith. You were reading the existing gossip, rumors, innuendos, and lies in a raw data file. Not quite the same thing.

But you didn’t understand that, did you, Mr Feith? And you still don’t.

These are the nincompoops, the naifs, the extraordinarily gullible James Bond wanna-be’s who justified this war for Junior. These are kids playing at being spies in the backyard, adolescents whose only knowledge of the grown-up intelligence world came from Ian Fleming, Matt Helm, and–gawd help us–Newt Gingrich.